pentagon acquisition reform

Top Stories 2016: U.S. Navy Operations From Sam LaGrone, USNI News: “USNI News polled its writers, naval analysts and service members on what they consider the most important military and maritime stories in 2016. Farsi Island Incident - Early in 2016, ten U.S. sailors strayed into the territorial waters of Iranian-controlled Farsi Island and were captured by Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy forces. They were held for a day before Secretary of State John Kerry negotiated their return with his Iranian counterpart. . .”

Is This What the Pentagon's "Third Offset" Has Been Missing?From Robert Farley, The Diplomat: "Two weeks ago, the Center for New American Security released a new report on the future of U.S. defense innovation. Titled Future Foundry, the report introduces the concept of “optionality,” an interpretation of the Third Offset; the idea that the United States can leverage technological advantage to offset the rise of China and the military re-emergence of Russia. DoD should respond to this new strategic and technological environment (perhaps better described as “environments”) by de-emphasizing monocapability; the heavy investment in one project or capability at the expense of alternatives."

What’s Wrong With ARSOF?From Sadcom via Happycom, Small Wars Journal: “When talking about the U.S. Army Special Operations Command (USASOC), we have to differentiate between “ARSOF” (Army Special Operations Forces) and all the units within the USASOC purview. First, USASOC does not have proponency over the Special Operations Aviation Regiment (SOAR), any JSOC unit, the 75th Ranger Regiment, or the 528th Sustainment Brigade. USASOC’s main two subordinate commands, the U.S. Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School (USAJFKSWCS) and 1st Special Forces Command (Airborne) contain the majority of forces that are what most refer to as “ARSOF.” That is, the three regiments of Special Forces (SF), Civil Affairs (CA), and Psychological Operations (or “Psyop,” also known by their mission acronym of Military Information Support Operations (MISO)). These three forces are really what USASOC concerns itself with, as SOAR’s proponent is Army Aviation and their working partner is JSOC. Likewise, the Ranger’s proponent is the Infantry and they work mainly with JSOC as well.” ​

Nano-Drones for Grunts From Matthew L. Schehl, Marine Corps Times: “Some Marine Corps squad leaders will be getting hand-held nano-drones in 2017, small devices that will offer once-unfathomable level of visibility over the battlefield. The Marine Corps is on track to field sets of miniaturized quadcopters, small unmanned aircraft systems designed for infantry units across the force, according to Marine Corps Combat Development Command officials.”

The Sinews of Multi-Domain BattleFrom Chris Telley, RealClearDefense: “What is the most important capability the joint force can develop for multi-domain operations? It is not land based artillery engaging ships, not applying surface-to-air missiles to create local air dominance, or even using submarines for anti-air warfare. These buzzworthy techniques are fascinating; but the reality of “extending combined arms across all domains” is more mundane and quite difficult.” ​

The Top 10 DefenseTech Posts of 2016 From Brendan McGarry, DefenseTech: “Here’s a look at the 10 most read stories of the year on DefenseTech: 1. Navy’s Futuristic Destroyer Is Apparently Too Stealthy - When it comes to naval destroyers, there’s apparently such a thing as being too stealthy. The U.S. Navy’s new Zumwalt-class guided missile destroyer is so covert that during normal peacetime operations its crew plan to sail with giant reflectors to ensure other ships can see it. . .”

Why President Trump Needs A Five-Year Defense Plan On Day OneFrom Loren Thompson, Forbes: “There's a saying in Washington that if new presidents don't move out on making changes the first year they are in office, the changes never happen. They get captured by the system -- the bureaucrats, the lobbyists -- and whatever it was they thought they were going to achieve during their presidency gets lost in the shuffle.”

Trump Says He Wants Boeing to Price Out F-35 CompetitorFrom Anthony Capaccio & Alex Wayne, Bloomberg: “President-elect Donald Trump upended years of Pentagon procurement planning with a tweet announcing he had asked Boeing Co. to price an upgrade of its F-18 Super Hornet jet that could replace Lockheed Martin Corp.’s F-35, the most expensive U.S. weapon system ever.”

Donald Trump Thinks He Can Beat the F-35From Joseph Trevithick, War Is Boring: “Between the official requirements, existing investments and the sheer number of defense contractors and foreign allies involved in the program, the jet has a healthy supply of supporters inside and out of governments around the world. The Super Hornet is also in no way, shape or form “comparable” to the Pentagon’s desired, final-production F-35. The two aircraft reflect very different eras and different views on the future of aerial warfare.”

The Defense Budget

​For the business community, the big question is whether Trump will be able to increase defense spending to pay for all his campaign promises. Even before the election, we told you it would be difficult for Trump or Hillary Clinton to raise the defense budget since Pentagon budget caps remain law until 2021, even though there are ways around them. Trump's picking Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R-S.C. — a deficit hawk — as his director of the White House Office of Management and Budget — is a signal that a massive, Reagan-esque build-up is not likely unless, as several investment analysts pointed out this week, cuts in other non-defense government programs are found. We've noticed that despite early hopes that the spigot would be wide open, defense executives appear to be tamping expectations, particularly after Trump's tweets about the high cost of a new Air Force One and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

The F-35's Roller Coaster RideIt's been a wild year for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The project has been on much firmer footing since the Pentagon put in place a new course of action in 2011 and officials wanted the public to know about it. The jet went to Europe twice, making its much-anticipated debut at the Farnborough Air Show, and Denmark said it would buy the plane. The Air Force declared some of its jets ready for war and Israel received its first two planes this month. Two Air Force officers even detailed how the jet would be used in a war with China. Visiting the F-35 factory in Fort Worth, getting a first-hand look at the massive expansion underway as Lockheed readies to start cranking out more than 100 planes each year for the U.S. military and allies. But on the other side of the coin, less than two months after the Air Force said its jets were ready for war, they were grounded due to faulty insulation. (They've since been fixed.) The Pentagon and Lockheed couldn't reach an agreement during contract negotiations for 57 jets, so the government imposed a take-it-or-leave-it deal.

Directed-Energy Weapons: The Next RevolutionFrom Dr. Doug Beason, The Cipher Brief: "Directed Energy (DE) Weapons – lasers and high power microwaves – have come of age. Over the past five decades, Directed Energy power capable of being used for weapons has increased by 10 orders of magnitude – over ten billion times – from milliwatt to megawatt. It's happening so fast; it's the equivalent of a "military Future Shock.""In Defense of a Big Idea for Joint WarfightingFrom J.P. Clark, War on the Rocks: “Since at least the end of World War II, an overarching trend within the U.S. military has been a long march toward a more integrated joint force. The creation of the Department of Defense and the Goldwater-Nichols Act are the highlights that garner most attention, but the present state of jointness also owes much to change achieved by more gradual degrees. Beginning with the desire to reap a post-Cold War “peace dividend,” the pull of budgets declining faster than operational demands led to an understandable desire to cut seemingly redundant capabilities. This gave rise to what defense leaders such as Gen. Martin Dempsey and Adm. Jonathan Greenert have touted as joint force interdependence — “a deliberate and selective reliance and trust of each Service on the capabilities of the others to maximize its own effectiveness.” The principle remains sound, but that is not to say that all earlier decisions made in its name are still valid. Deliberate and selective choices made in one operational environment might be unwise in a different context.”

Russia tested a satellite-killing missile, according to Popular Mechanics, firing the PL-19 Nudol without aiming at or taking out a particular satellite. The system is designed to intercept ballistic missiles in their midcourse phase as they briefly exit the atmosphere for reentry. The same capability allows them to target and hit satellites, a capability that's become more desirable as the U.S. military has become increasingly reliant on satellites for communication, navigation, and intelligence.

CHINA: China's New Strategic BomberFrom Andrew Tate, Jane's 360: “Remarks made in the media report by Rear Admiral Yin Zhuo, director of the People's Liberation Army Navy's Expert Consultation Committee, followed on from the confirmation given on 1 September by General Ma Xiaotian, Commander of the People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF), that China is developing a new long-range strategic bomber referred to in the article as the H-20.”

The Pentagon has announced plans to open a manufacturing institute focused on the creation of human tissue biofabrication, which will be the seventh defense-related manufacturing center under the Obama administration’s Manufacturing USA program. – Military Times

How Trump Can Fix The F-35 ProgramFrom Loren Thompson, Forbes: “President-elect Trump is right in saying the program doesn't need to cost as much as it does. Even if you remove the 50 years of inflation "guess-timates" in the program's trillion-dollar price-tag, it is clear that a lot of the money spent on the F-35 fighter is not related to meeting the operational needs of three different military services. For instance, 20-30% of the price for each fighter results from having to comply with government regulations that don't exist in the commercial world. If Boeing's jetliner unit had to follow the thousands of regulations military contractors do in developing products, it would soon be out of business. Its prices would be too high.”

A Fresh Look at Russia's T-50 Stealth FighterFrom Brad Lendon, CNN: “The world is getting a fresh look at Russia's newest stealth fighter jet after images were posted on the manufacturer's website. Most of the photos show the twin-engine Sukhoi T-50 jet operating from runways on a snow-covered airfield, although a location was not given in a report on RT.com, which surfaced the pictures on Sunday. According to the metadata on the photos released by the Komsomolsk-on-Amur Aircraft Plant, the images were taken last Thursday. Russian media reported in October that the ninth prototype of the T-50 would be undergoing trials later this year. The single-seat T-50 is Russia's first stealth fighter.”

The Navy’s New Force Structure AssessmentFrom Bryan McGrath, War on the Rocks: “Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announced the results of a much-awaited internal review of fleet size known as a “Force Structure Assessment. It appears that the Navy is setting its sails to the winds of renewed great power competition. The assessment states a requirement of 355 ships that Mabus declares must “continue to protect America and defend our strategic interests around the world, all while continuing the counter terrorism fight and appropriately competing with a growing China and resurgent Russia….””

U.S., CHINA: The End of U.S. Primacy in AsiaFrom Dave Majumdar, The National Interest: “The U.S. Navy and the U.S. Missile Defense Agency successfully launched a salvo of two Raytheon Standard SM-6 Dual I missiles against a medium-range ballistic missile target earlier this week. USS John Paul Jones (DDG-53)—an Arleigh Burke-class Aegis destroyer—conducted the test shortly after midnight on Dec. 14 to demonstrate a Sea Based Terminal endo-atmospheric defensive capability.”

The Pentagon’s Innovation ExperimentFrom Fred Kaplan, MIT Technology Review: “In 2006, Raj Shah was an F16 pilot in the U.S. Air Force, flying combat missions in Operation Iraqi Freedom. It was the war’s worst year, and Shah had a problem. The display screen in his cockpit had no moving map. The GPS showed him ground coördinates, but there was no overlaid image—no moving dot or icon—that showed where he was in relation to those coördinates. “There were times,” he recalls, “when I didn’t know whether I was over Iraq or Iran.” During home leave, he bought an iPAQ, one of the early pocket PCs, and loaded it with a standard, cheap aviation-map program. Back in his F16, he strapped the pad to his lap and relied on it—not the plane’s multimillion-dollar mil-spec software—for navigation. Shah realized that commercial technology was racing ahead of the U.S. military’s own, and that this was a dangerous trend for America’s security, given the nation’s reliance on its technical edge to win wars.”

U.S., CHINA: U.S. Space Capabilities Threatened by China's New Anti-Satellite MissileFrom Eva M. Fernandez, University Herald: “While America plans to reorganize their space capabilities, China is reportedly planning a test flight on its new anti-satellite missile called the Dong Neng-3, Free Beacon reported. According to China military affairs specialist and International Assessment and Strategy Center senior fellow, Richard Fisher, the anti-satellite missile can reach up to over 18,000 miles into space. It means the Dong Neng-3 has the capability to hit US surveillance satellites. It seems like this is the only asymmetric warfare weapon powerful enough to stop the progress that Rogers is planning for.”

A New Strategic Approach to Military-Technical AdvantageFrom Ben FitzGerald, Alexandra Sander, & Jacqueline Parziale, CNAS: “The Department of Defense must recognize that its military-technical challenges are a matter of strategy – the fundamental approach the department takes to generating technological advantage – not simply of acquisition policy. The DoD’s acquisition system requires constant improvement but functions reasonably well for its intended purpose and has improved in recent years, as reported by Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Frank Kendall in October 2016.” Bioterrorism And Gene Editing: New Biological Weapons of War?From Himanshu Goenka, International Business Times: “Crispr is a tool that allows for genes to be edited, and has great potential in the treatment of a wide range of diseases, including some for which there is currently no known cure. It rose to prominence in 2015, when it was chosen as the breakthrough technology of the year by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and became even better known in 2016 when scientists behind it were strong contenders for the Nobel Prize (which it finally didn’t win) and also appeared in Time magazine’s readers’ poll for the Person of the Year title. However, in a somewhat surprising announcement in February 2016, Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper included genome editing in a list of weapons of mass destruction and proliferation while presenting the Worldwide Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community report to the Senate Armed Services Committee." ​

U.S., INDIA: U.S.-India Defense Ties Deepen With Defense BillFrom Benjamin Schwartz, The Diplomat: “Echoing legislation first introduced by Congressman George Holding (R-N.C.), the Obama White House adopted the “major defense partner” designation in June, but the NDAA goes further. It mandates actions to institutionalize the U.S. national security bureaucracy’s focus of India. They include sustaining the Pentagon’s one-of–a-kind “India Rapid Reaction Cell,” increasing military officer exchanges and requiring the Department of Defense (DoD) and State Department to assess India’s capabilities to perform military missions that are in the mutual interest of both India and the United States.”

U.S. Missile Defense Must Be a Top Priority From George Landrith, Washington Examiner: “In recent months, while most Americans were tuned into the presidential election, a new wave of disturbing global threats to the homeland went mostly unnoticed. In August, North Korea attempted to launch two new Musadan ballistic missiles toward our allies in Japan that luckily didn't make it far. And in October Russia unveiled its new RS-28 Sarmat thermonuclear-armed ballistic missile in a show of strength as it continues to reassert itself in Europe.” How Trump Can Make America’s Military Great AgainFrom Daniel Gouré, The National Interest: “History provides a valuable lesson for the incoming administration on how to make a dollar of increased spending serve multiple purposes. Simply put, investing in defense infrastructure such as naval shipyards and ammunition production facilities will help rebuild both the nation’s infrastructure and its military.” ​

The Battle for Naval Supremacy in the Indian OceanFrom Manu Balachandran, Quartz: “India is flexing its maritime muscles in the Indian Ocean. Since 2011, India's naval voyages across the world's third-largest ocean have grown in number by 300%, according to consultancy firm IHS Markit, bolstering the country's presence in a key region where China has been making inroads. China has increasingly deployed nuclear and conventional submarines in the Indian Ocean as it looks to assert its dominance as a regional superpower, and counter India's growing influence, in South Asia. . .” ​

Robert Samuelson writes: The underlying struggle pits the Pentagon against the welfare state. Over the decades, national priorities have shifted dramatically. As late as 1990, defense spending constituted 24 percent of the federal budget and 5 percent of the economy (gross domestic product). In 2015, defense was 16 percent of the budget and 3 percent of GDP — and these figures were declining. This is one war the Pentagon is clearly losing. – Washington Post

Grenade Launchers and Bed Sheets: An Invisibility Kit for Urban CombatFrom John Spencer, Modern War Institute: “When a US military force enters complex urban terrain much of the control it achieves in other environments—massing against the enemy once identified, maintaining initiative, managing standoff distance—can be lost. Soldiers must constantly scan in three dimensions—not only all around them, but also as high as the highest building—and will be separated from vehicles and their capabilities—cover, fire support, and communication. Even if the environment is not contested, it still feels suffocating.” ​

Decoding Al-Qaeda's StrategyFrom Chris Zeitz, Strategy Bridge: “Al Qaeda has reflected extensively on the jihadist movement, particularly on lost opportunities. Al-Suri in particular wrote about Algeria, a text which was lost while fleeing Afghanistan. Many Al Qaeda leaders cut their revolutionary teeth fighting in Egypt and have wrote about those experiences as well. When the Islamic State declared a Caliphate in 2014, it represented a departure from the state-building theory underway in Al Qaeda—one of gradual and pragmatic progress. Al Qaeda seems to have learned its lesson from mistakes in the past and is reluctant to overextend itself before politically and militarily solidified. With the Islamic State now in peril, at least territorially speaking, Al Qaeda’s strategy can return to prominence.” ​

Communication StrategyCalculated Communications in a Concave WorldFrom Lance A. Wilkins, Small Wars Journal: “Strategic communication, especially in the form of social media and open network reporting, is an immensely powerful instrument. Given the current environment, the US Department of Defense (DoD) cannot sit idly by and hope that its own information dissemination efforts will be impervious to the effects of this emerging information technology or that the impressibility of those targeted by the technology will otherwise be influenced in its favor. Rather than allowing itself to be victimized or allowing current procedures to render a potentially valuable tool ineffective, the DoD must change its myriad of risk averse policies currently resident in its strategic communications community so that it can operate in this environment with advantage..” ​

The On-Going Battle for the Soul of the ArmyFrom Gregory H. Murry, Small Wars Journal: “Led by General William DePuy, TRADOC would take the army back to the basics. Deciding that there was nothing to be learned from the army’s experiences in Vietnam, he discarded those lessons and focused on a NATO conventional war scenario in Western Europe with the Soviet Union’s Warsaw Pact. DePuy was in a hurry. He believed soldiers should be told how to fight and created a comprehensive program of training, doctrine and equipment procurement that would rebuild the shattered army.” ​

Archimedes' FeetFrom Christopher Ellis, Strategy Bridge: “Starting small, there are numerous models to depict the makeup of a person. Examples include the Eight Dimensions of Wellness, the Elements of Wellness, the Wellness Wheel, and for the Army’s Comprehensive Soldier and Family Fitness: the Five Dimensions of Strength. With some variation and expansion in these models, the dimensions are: social, physical, intellectual, emotional, and spiritual.” ​

President-elect Donald Trump comes to the office promising some of the biggest military force increases in recent history: a fleet of 350 warships, compared with the current Navy goal of 308, and 36 active Marine Corps infantry battalions as opposed to today’s 24, to name two figures. But while these goals are in line with the right-leaning Heritage Foundation’s projection of what it would take to address today’s global threats and conflicts, building the force to meet those goals would not be a fast or easy process, defense leaders said Wednesday. – DOD Buzz

Rebuilding America's Military From Paul Scharre & Lauren Fish, CNAS: “Military power is not organic or constant. It requires investment, innovation, and maintenance. Deploying military power degrades it and requires later revitalization. Adversaries adapt to the most advanced equipment and effective tactics. New threats emerge while old ones wane. Military leverage stems from warfighting advantage, which encompasses two simultaneous requirements: the ability to project military power abroad and to protect the U.S. homeland."

Sequestration Damages Military's Trust of Political Leaders From Jacqueline Klimas, Washington Examiner: “A new study on military families released Thursday found that sequestration is more than just a Washington buzzword. More than a quarter of the troops, family members and veterans who responded to the Blue Star Families 2016 Military Family Lifestyle Survey said they "felt changes in benefits, budget cuts and sequestration illustrated that commitments are not being kept for those who serve." Only 19 percent of military families say they would recommend serving in the military to others "if the current trend of cutting benefits continues.""

Donald Trump has chosen retired Marine Gen. James N. Mattis to be secretary of defense, the president-elect announced Thursday, selecting a former senior military officer who has said that responding to “political Islam” is the major security issue facing the United States. – Washington Post

Gitto’s story is one of many about Mattis that, along with his bluntness and success on the battlefield, have made him perhaps the most popular senior officer of the modern generation with his own troops. – Washington Post’s CheckpointFormer Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Friday that Donald Trump’s nomination of retired Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis to the Pentagon’s top post was a “terrific” decision, joining the choir of bipartisan voices who back the president-elect’s latest Cabinet pick. – Washington Free BeaconDespite his brawler reputation, retired Marine Gen. James Mattis actually tried hard on the battlefield to avoid fights, Commandant Gen. Robert Neller said Saturday. – Military.comEditorial: [T]here is a tradition of former generals, such as Brent Scowcroft or Colin Powell, serving presidents with honor, and the Senate set a precedent for waiving the defense rule when it approved George C. Marshall for the secretary’s job in 1950. The extreme circumstances of the Trump presidency-to-be — including a commander in chief who is both ignorant of military and international affairs and prone to impulsiveness — strengthen the case for a Mattis exception. – Washington PostEditorial: Gen. Mattis has seen the cost of wars enough to want to deter them, but he also knows that if you fight them you need to do so with the force and will to win. As he said in a letter to a colleague: “‘Winging it’ and filling body bags as we sort out what works reminds us of the moral dictates and the cost of competence in our profession.” Mr. Trump has made a reassuring choice. – Wall Street Journal (subscription required)FPI’s Mark Moyar writes: High representation of former U.S. military officers in the Trump administration will have salutary effects after eight years during which the president gave the military short shrift….The presence of retired generals will help prevent further such wrongdoings and enable the administration to undo the damage that can still be undone. – National Review OnlineKori Schake writes: Civil-military relations in America remain an unequal relationship, though: political leaders have a responsibility to seek unvarnished military counsel, but they are under no obligation to take that advice. We elect national leaders to aggregate our societal preferences, including whether to go to war, and how much of blood, treasure, and effort to expend on these wars. Mattis not only has a deep understanding of the norms of American civil-military relations, he has consistently upheld them. – Foreign Policy